WASHINGTON DC. Finally, the government has decided to take action on the issue of weapons that cross daily from the United States to Mexico. Unfortunately the strategy you have decided to use will surely fail. Furthermore, it is in danger of being reversed. But first, let me explain why I say “finally”.
For years, in public and private meetings I spoke about the need for both the government and Mexican society to take action on the issue of arms trafficking that were introduced mainly from the United States. Most, including the press, looked at my comments with disbelief. On January 26, 2007 I was presented with the opportunity to do so before the highest authority of the Mexican executive. In one of the plenary conferences in the framework of the World Economic Forum in Davos where President Calderón was the only speaker, I commented: The situation of Mexico in general in relation to the United States has been reactive. It is the United States that sets the agenda, Mexico then reacts…. I believe that now is a good time to introduce a series of proposals …… .Mexico has never raised the issue of arms trafficking, which you have always said is a major issue of national security, due to the association with drug traffickers … .. The president replied that there were two important issues on the table, migration and drug trafficking, which would therefore be complicated at that time. (YouTube Davos Annual Meeting 2007, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, Minute 18:26)
The Mexican press was present, but ignored it. Instead, there were private comments like the one made to me by the then governor of Nuevo León, Natividad González Paras. At the end of the event, he told me, – what do you have? – my answer, that it was not a matter of eggs but of strategy. A few years later, in 2012 when I published my book Myths and Mentions of the Mexican Economy, I again addressed the issue of arms trafficking, this time with an important variant: The failed operation in Mexico, Fast and Furious.
“It seems that we have a phobia for the bad experiences we have had with great powers at the time of asserting our weight…. With the great ones it is not necessarily valid to confront face to face, but to act through the ribs, the folds, the between the eyebrows of the relationship…. Two examples illustrate this. I often ask my Mexican friends what they would do if, walking through an American city like Houston, a brick fell on their heads: they all, without thinking twice, say they would sue. So what about “Fast and Furious”? US officials publicly admitted to their Congress that they screwed up by allowing arms and money to enter Mexico as a strategy to combat organized crime within our borders… .. So, how is it possible that Mexico has not even filed a criminal lawsuit? or civilian for the deaths generated by drug trafficking armed by the United States? And I’m not talking about the weapons that illegally entered and entered Mexican territory through the northern border, but about those that United States authorities accepted to have brought into our country. Three years after the Fast and the Furious and more than five of the preceding arms smuggling, neither the Mexican government has sued for the lives of its dead policemen and soldiers, nor has civil society done so for the destruction of its own fabric. What do you think the United States would have done if it had been the other way around?”(P. 256).
For the above, I write FINALLY. In the next installment I will explain why the strategy will not be successful legally or politically and instead it can be reversed, that is, there is an opposite effect on the rebound.